Shouldn't the great architectural monuments be restored?

Question

Not just preserved, but made like nearly new...(of course leaving a bit untouched for historians to study). They'd last longer and be more aesthetic, don't you think?

Answer 1

Many monuments or other structures from the past are restored, either fully, or to some extent. Some places, such as old log forts on the American frontier, are completely restored. Otherwise they would rot into the ground and be gone. When they are reconstructed, people can see what life was like then. Some sites are kept from further decay and preserved, but not restored, such as the Roman Forum or Pompeii. Others are let to take the course of nature. Some temples I've seen at Angkor, Cambodia, have been left on their own, so visitors can see the effect the jungle has on these massive buildings. The seeds grow between the stones, growing into massive rain forest trees whose huge roots rip apart stone walls. That, in itself, is a fantastic lesson. Most countries are very careful about their historic places and go through a long process of decision-making with historians, archaeologists, and those types before the plan is made.

Answer 2

No

We do not have the skill to do it the way it was done back then. The ancients were Master Craftsmen. No one today could match the quality of the thing they were supposedly restoring and in the end the result would be a cheap copy.

Answer 3

no i dont think they should be restored u have to let there history remain even if eventually the fade away
or get stolen

Answer 4

mabye we should repaint the last supper because it is faded.........lololololololollo